Seems to me that MMP operates under a fallacy. That a major party of left or right needs to make concessions to its extreme friends in order to form a coalition. ACT is always going to vote with National, so why make concessions to them? It seems just an excuse to go further right than National dared to include it its own policies. Why is nobody challenging them on this?
Seems to me that this mechanism is leading to much greater policy luches with government change than is wanted by the electorate.
I completely agree. But with weak leadership as in Luxon, coupled with strong minor party leaders as in Seymour and Peters the tail will always wag the dog. For all the demonization of the Green Party, I have yet to witness them calling the shots because they understand their position as a minor player us to influence and not dictate.
... it's a two-way negotiation though, and the Greens could have driven a harder bargain in 2017 so that Labour would have had no choice but to give them seats in Cabinet, like the situation forced onto Luxon. Had that happened, it may have been harder for Winnie to block CGT.
Some great insight here. The Labour Party could do well to open the doors of its stratagem room to such thinking. Your closing statements re; Hipkins sadly ring true. A genuine caring bloke with an incredible work rate and obvious intellect, but fails to inspire. If I were to look elsewhere in the current crop for a clever charismatic light to lead the next charge I’d look no further the Kieran McAnulty.
Err......no evidence???? Australia, many local council elections employ STV extremely successfully. What is you evidence that its mathematically unsound? Since 1996 we have had narcissists like Peters, Henare, Dunne and now Seymour holding the vast majority in New Zealand to ransom, weilding unbridled and unwarranted power and influence for their electoral base. 8.6% and 6% respectively in the current troika is hardly a mandate for the types of revisionsry and sociopathic laws both parties seem intent on pursuing. And if you believe this is OK then chances are you voted for one or the other.
My problem is with the "the present situation is bad, therefore we would be better with STV" idea that seems to come from STV believers. They give no evidence of why this might be true.
An STV vote is ambiguous. Is your second preference someone you like almost as much as the first, or someone you like not at all? Or something in between? Only the first preference has meaning, the rest is wasted effort.
I disagree. As a kid did you never pick other to play on your side, starting with your preferred choice and so on. What could be simpler? With STV candidate with the most first choices must gain a raw 50% majority. If that is not reached, then the candidate with least first choice preferences has their 'second' choice redistributed amongst the remaining candidates, and so on until a 'preferred' candidate is elected.
So for me I would vote in the following order:
Green Party
Labour
Te Pati Maori
Beyond this I would leave blank, since I'd rather cut both my hands off and poke both my eyes before I gave preference for the remaining parties. But FYI in reverse order starting with my least favoured choices are:
ACT,
Winston First
National.
The reality of this system is:
Fewer MP's (wouldn't that be nice!)
No list MP's
No hangover MP's
But lastly and most importantly no tails wagging the dog.
Thanks for this comment, Mike. STV is often run in multi-member districts with multiple winners. The more seats per district, the closer it approaches proportionality.
McNulty is just another whingeing leftie - all mouth and no trousers. More of the same will lead Labour nowhere. There is still not a leader among them.
Hi Gerard. Thanks for the comment. I respect your preferences regarding leaders, but I'd just request that you not use derogatory language about any individuals on this newsletter please.
Labour lost my vote for the first time. I cut up a life member's card and left having been in the Party for 43 years. This article summarizes their faults perfectly.
The challenge for those of us interested in politics is to support the demise of neo-liberal economics. Hipkins and Labour still represent this deadly form of economics.
Thanks for the comment, Garry. I'm not a member of Labour (or any other party) and so I don't get inside goss, but I do wonder if they underestimate how much work they have to do to win back voters like yourself.
Likewise, Garry. My heart bleeds for Labour’s progressive policies but I voted against the party at the last election. They had soon dashed my hopes of a genuinely insightful alternative to the toxic neoliberalism of our last forty years. In other words, they were content to perpetuate NZ’s long agony with these ruinous doctrines. So, their progressive policies were futile - left to stride into the headwinds of the very ideology creating the our social and economic distortions in the first place. The Māori Health Authority (I supported that) never had a chance because its architects didn’t have the wit or courage to deal to the underlying economic causes of poor health in Māori communities. Indeed, its most vociferous proponent, Willie Jackson, is a self-proclaimed champion of neoliberalism.
But the decider for me was Labour’s determination to propel us unmandated into new constitutional arrangements without offering thinking Kiwis a say. They lied to the electorate when assuring us that He Puapua was not government policy. It was . Partnership and Co-governance policies have made our Public service into an instrument of the Māori sovereignty agenda. The sector no longer serves the broader public interest impartially. So we non- Maori have little say in the policies government agencies generate.
I could not tolerate the prospect of NZ facing the lethal challenges of climate change, pandemics, and poverty while crippled by constitutional turmoil.
For these reasons, the prospect of Labour in government after the next election fills me with dread. The current nightmare is ghastly enough. I do not want to replace it with Labour’s catastrophe.
Thanks for this great contribution to the discussion, Basil. I have yet to see a proper survey on this, but I doubt that even a majority of Maori would support the full He Puapua vision, let alone others. Given the comments, maybe I'll write about neoliberalism and what the alternatives could be. Cheers.
Really enjoyed this summary. Your observation regarding the Ardern administration's lack of progress on anything outside of Covid is very telling. Labour will NEVER be reelected whilst Hipkins is leader. The boy from the Hutt made good is a cheap veneer for the reality of an appalling legacy as education minister, and a minister for Covid tarred with the Ardern brush. Willie Jackson or Keiran McAnulty are obvious replacements, but neither hold constituency seats and that's a real stumbling block for me. If I had my way MMP would be booted into touch for the representation dog it's proved to be. The replacement with STV would see the back of populist like Peters which would be a huge improvement in a move to real representation.
Anything but a return to FPP, which belongs in the rubbish bin of history. US, UK & Canada need to follow suit, if their business elites will allow it.
I would vote for that if it meant the end of tails wagging the dog. Peters and Seymour need to be consigned to a blip in history. People always bag the Green Party as extremists, when they are possibly the most rational of all third parties
Do we really want a return to the spoilerific NZ FPP elections of 1978, 1981 & 1993? Or the US elections of 2000 & 2016?
I'll go further & say FPP doesn't just belong in the rubbish bin of history, it belongs in a toxic waste dump. If we actually have to change electoral systems, STV or IRV should be it.
Thanks for comments, Mike. There's a lot to be said for STV, and yet it wasn't picked as favourite back in 1992. If Willie Jackson can dial down the invective, he could become a credible leader.
Maybe not yet. More councils, including our very conservative Otago Regional, are making the change. Some reflection on how it works at a local level might help. Another government like the one we have now might tip us over that edge.
Fair point. But, without dismissing STV, it seems to me that a number of comments (not just yours) are unhappy with MMP. There's still a case to be made for MMP, however.
Myself and around 20% (from memory) voted for STV and would’ve been a lot higher if the media hadn’t effectively decided to promote MMP as the only “realistic” alternative to FPP, the experts in the royal commission having protested that one. It’s a shame the media doesn’t seem to have enlightening the public to make an informed choice on their agenda...
I’d also go so far as to say I think having party lists under MMP is a real problem that has contributed to an “internal elite” focus and loss of direct accountability. STV ensures all MPs represent an electorate which I believe leads to more representative democracy. Finally Winston did well on the back of parliament’s complete failure of leadership over the parliament protest. He got my vote almost on this alone. Yes it was f... the elites and I know he’s a populist but it was a case of “damn”.
And I agree that Winston very cleverly picked his moment when he 'walked among the unvaccinated'. A delegation from the protest should have been invited in to a korero with MPs.
Winston Peters is a travesty in our electoral process. A narcissist who has held our country to ransom since MMP's introduction. His Deputy Shane Jones is the worst kind of puffery since the insufferable Peter Dunne. And for you information Winston First got just 6%, thats right S.I.X. P.E.R.C.E.N.T. of the party vote and now my daughter her partner and their young son are going to have to live with the consequences of thus undemocratic fast track legislation. I hope your satisfied with the outcome of your protest vote
Am I not allowed to comment then? What do you mean dial it down. I'm so tired of being told how I should react to the evils being visited upon me by unreprsentative minorities. It is high time everyone, not just me, who is against the undemocratic processes being entertained did get angry and challenge all those who believe that Mr Peters, Mr Seymour et al have been given a mandate to behave like sociopaths. Do you not agree?
Mike, I know the media, many interest groups and individuals these days have adopted a post-modernist, self-righteous and us/them point of view that leads them to making extreme statements that bear little resemblance to reality. Your statement above follows this pattern so I just say "get real". Do you really think Peters is the worst thing since sliced bread? Is he going to absolutely wreck the NZ economy, destroy social cohesion (any worse than the last govt), destroy NZ foreign policy, start WWIII? Good grief man. Yes I am happy to be rid of the last Labour govt but I couldn't vote National or Act and I wanted my vote to count. Now I am pretty pissed off about sidling up to the US with AUKUS etc but as I recall the bloody Labour govt were doing that too. Grant that's another point that needs to be made about the last govt. I was among a lot of peace-nics that supported Labour stand over nuclear issue but that has completely fallen by the wayside in all but name. You can't be part of AUKUS and "space wars" as we are heading towards and pretend we uphold a non-nuclear stance. Pure fantasy.
Fair point about AUKUS, Malcolm. I didn't have that in mind as a I wrote the post. Your other comments make me think I could write about the role that Peters plays in NZ politics.
STV seeems to have its believers who think it is the solution to any electoral problem. To others it is mathematically unsound, and hugely complex to understand, vote under and count.
So many comments advocating STV are like this, in effect "it is bad so STV would be better". No evidence.
Beyond Ardern’s control? Piffle. She revealed that she couldn’t organise a party in a brewery, along with her colleagues, none of whom had ever had a real job. Bringing back the children will not work. And as for National recycling Collins, forget about it. You only get one turn. Luxon will harden up - early days yet.
I guess the Kiwibuild fiasco will always be remembered as the example! And I agree, Max, that it would be unwise of National to trot out Collins again. Her 2020 campaign was a disaster of mixed messaging.
Helen Clark: Under promise and over deliver. But to do that you actually need to know how to deliver and the current Labour Party does not. But watch this space - change is coming. Wealth tax and/or capital gains on their way.
According to Nostradamus the wealth tax will be accompanied by a middle-class tax break, to ameliorate your criticism. Makes sense. Question will be will it work? Middle class a bit bigger than the wealthy, so they’ll need a lot of tax from the rich to pay anything meaningful. I’d prefer they grew the cake myself, rather than ever smaller slices.
Good post but I think you missed a couple of important points and certainly ones that played into my thinking: first was Arden’s handling of cannabis referendum. After CGT a second sign of lack of leadership. The second thing, you downplayed, was the parliament protest. Cancel culture/ complete lack of leadership in my opinion. Bolger had it right; admit u stuffed up and go and talk to them... Labour lost me big time on that one (and I took the vax and booster but thought the marginalisation was appalling- admittedly media and Wgtn elites jumped onto the bandwagon but that’s not the enlightened way forward) - immoral in fact (if u pay even slight attention to the teachings of Jesus)
I'd quite forgotten about the cannabis referendum!
Similarly, although I got all the vax shots, I do think the mandates went too far. A couple of academic colleagues refused it, and I had to respect their decisions. They kept their jobs, but no one ever checked our vax passes on campus anyway, even in buildings. It was a complete farce. Some of those mandates were overturned on judicial review.
I guess cannabis doesn't play a big part in most people's voting decision BUT for the more progressive "freedom of choice" amongst the population (including me) it was a definite fail, "noted for future reference". I saw plenty of "hippies" (and Maori) down at the protest by the way when I wandered around to pick up the vibe on no less that 4 occasions and very few "far right nazis" (as in < 2) - VERY different from the MSM narrative. No doubt there were lots of paranoid people, feeling victimised though (isn't that what leads people into conspiracy theories)... It's going to take quite some time for Labour to overcome the suspicion of a not inconsiderable minority. The only upside for Labour is that National or ACT didn't do much/any better on this front.
Thanks, Mike. But would you then say the same about Key delivering a hospital pass to English, as he'd seen his popularity was waning and he couldn't contemplate a future coalition with Peters?
Really strong column. Thanks Grant. And along with the comments above covers much of reasons for Labour's spectacular fall. Worth adding that while Labour talked the language of transformation, in reality they followed a conservative economic model that rewarded the wealthy (eg 2019-21 the largest increase in house prices for those fortunate enough to be on the property ladder) and refused any initatives that might redistribute wealth to those in need (eg CGT). They wanted Scandanavian social/education/health policies with a tax policy that would not be out of place in USA. Something that are still struggling to understand and even if they finally get there, Hipkins and co have little credibility to make this happen in the eyes of many voters. They couldn't 'read the room' in the last 3 years of government and there is little to indicate that they have progressed far here (exhibit A - Willie Jackson on Jack Tame week before last -Jack "You lost 6 of the 7 Maori seats in last years election and you say you did nothing wrong?" Willie - "that's right - we won the party vote - you are a bit sarcastic Jack". Great stand up comedy - Monty Python where are you when we need you?
Yep. This massive funnelling upwards of wealth was what really lost me. I really couldn’t believe it at the time, watching companies pocket their gains (Covid gains) while their workers and communities got poorer. Was utterly gobsmacked by the failure to even attempt a rebalance. I cannot imagine what would win me back to that party. The options for any expression of the progressive left is woeful. We have the Greens. And that container doesn’t fit us all at this point.
Yes Alexa - agreed. I initially thought (naively) that Jacinda/Hipkins/Robertson were simply unaware of the extent of this imbalance - with COVID we were all running pretty fast to try and make sense of it - but as time went on it became clear that it wasn't they were unaware - it was that they simply didn't care enough to go beyond the words.
Thanks for your comments, Mark. Appreciated as always. Your point about social policy not matching tax policy is very good. And were you thinking of the one about the dead parrot?
Great column - enthralling. Two more comparators: on not messing around with kindness, Dan Andrews’s leadership of Victoria through the pandemic - tough rather than kind, and Labor are still in power there. (But let’s not forget gender here: Andrews is a bloke and the electorate is MERCILESS to women leaders - so unfair!) Second comparator, on emergency leadership soon being forgotten: UK Labour’s victory in the first general election after WWII: “we love ‘ee, Winnie, but we’ll none vote for ‘ee.”
Nice comparisons, thanks Kai! I should learn more about Angela Merkel, as she stands out as the most successful woman leader of our times, including some time in the Covid era.
To offset Hipkins, National must roll Luxon. Collins is the logical choice. She knows her stuff and is not afraid to tell it as is is. Luxon tries too hard to please everyone.
Seems to me that MMP operates under a fallacy. That a major party of left or right needs to make concessions to its extreme friends in order to form a coalition. ACT is always going to vote with National, so why make concessions to them? It seems just an excuse to go further right than National dared to include it its own policies. Why is nobody challenging them on this?
Seems to me that this mechanism is leading to much greater policy luches with government change than is wanted by the electorate.
I completely agree. But with weak leadership as in Luxon, coupled with strong minor party leaders as in Seymour and Peters the tail will always wag the dog. For all the demonization of the Green Party, I have yet to witness them calling the shots because they understand their position as a minor player us to influence and not dictate.
We have yet to see how the Greens would conduct themselves if they had seats in Cabinet.
I dont have any concerns here, other than whether a future Labour administration ever let's them into cabinet
... it's a two-way negotiation though, and the Greens could have driven a harder bargain in 2017 so that Labour would have had no choice but to give them seats in Cabinet, like the situation forced onto Luxon. Had that happened, it may have been harder for Winnie to block CGT.
Some great insight here. The Labour Party could do well to open the doors of its stratagem room to such thinking. Your closing statements re; Hipkins sadly ring true. A genuine caring bloke with an incredible work rate and obvious intellect, but fails to inspire. If I were to look elsewhere in the current crop for a clever charismatic light to lead the next charge I’d look no further the Kieran McAnulty.
Err......no evidence???? Australia, many local council elections employ STV extremely successfully. What is you evidence that its mathematically unsound? Since 1996 we have had narcissists like Peters, Henare, Dunne and now Seymour holding the vast majority in New Zealand to ransom, weilding unbridled and unwarranted power and influence for their electoral base. 8.6% and 6% respectively in the current troika is hardly a mandate for the types of revisionsry and sociopathic laws both parties seem intent on pursuing. And if you believe this is OK then chances are you voted for one or the other.
My problem is with the "the present situation is bad, therefore we would be better with STV" idea that seems to come from STV believers. They give no evidence of why this might be true.
An STV vote is ambiguous. Is your second preference someone you like almost as much as the first, or someone you like not at all? Or something in between? Only the first preference has meaning, the rest is wasted effort.
I disagree. As a kid did you never pick other to play on your side, starting with your preferred choice and so on. What could be simpler? With STV candidate with the most first choices must gain a raw 50% majority. If that is not reached, then the candidate with least first choice preferences has their 'second' choice redistributed amongst the remaining candidates, and so on until a 'preferred' candidate is elected.
So for me I would vote in the following order:
Green Party
Labour
Te Pati Maori
Beyond this I would leave blank, since I'd rather cut both my hands off and poke both my eyes before I gave preference for the remaining parties. But FYI in reverse order starting with my least favoured choices are:
ACT,
Winston First
National.
The reality of this system is:
Fewer MP's (wouldn't that be nice!)
No list MP's
No hangover MP's
But lastly and most importantly no tails wagging the dog.
Thanks for this comment, Mike. STV is often run in multi-member districts with multiple winners. The more seats per district, the closer it approaches proportionality.
If not Chippy, then Kieran Mac.
McNulty is just another whingeing leftie - all mouth and no trousers. More of the same will lead Labour nowhere. There is still not a leader among them.
Hi Gerard. Thanks for the comment. I respect your preferences regarding leaders, but I'd just request that you not use derogatory language about any individuals on this newsletter please.
Labour lost my vote for the first time. I cut up a life member's card and left having been in the Party for 43 years. This article summarizes their faults perfectly.
The challenge for those of us interested in politics is to support the demise of neo-liberal economics. Hipkins and Labour still represent this deadly form of economics.
Thanks for the comment, Garry. I'm not a member of Labour (or any other party) and so I don't get inside goss, but I do wonder if they underestimate how much work they have to do to win back voters like yourself.
Likewise, Garry. My heart bleeds for Labour’s progressive policies but I voted against the party at the last election. They had soon dashed my hopes of a genuinely insightful alternative to the toxic neoliberalism of our last forty years. In other words, they were content to perpetuate NZ’s long agony with these ruinous doctrines. So, their progressive policies were futile - left to stride into the headwinds of the very ideology creating the our social and economic distortions in the first place. The Māori Health Authority (I supported that) never had a chance because its architects didn’t have the wit or courage to deal to the underlying economic causes of poor health in Māori communities. Indeed, its most vociferous proponent, Willie Jackson, is a self-proclaimed champion of neoliberalism.
But the decider for me was Labour’s determination to propel us unmandated into new constitutional arrangements without offering thinking Kiwis a say. They lied to the electorate when assuring us that He Puapua was not government policy. It was . Partnership and Co-governance policies have made our Public service into an instrument of the Māori sovereignty agenda. The sector no longer serves the broader public interest impartially. So we non- Maori have little say in the policies government agencies generate.
I could not tolerate the prospect of NZ facing the lethal challenges of climate change, pandemics, and poverty while crippled by constitutional turmoil.
For these reasons, the prospect of Labour in government after the next election fills me with dread. The current nightmare is ghastly enough. I do not want to replace it with Labour’s catastrophe.
Thanks for this great contribution to the discussion, Basil. I have yet to see a proper survey on this, but I doubt that even a majority of Maori would support the full He Puapua vision, let alone others. Given the comments, maybe I'll write about neoliberalism and what the alternatives could be. Cheers.
Here's a good place to start on the flaws in neo-liberalism.
Rethinking Economics or Rethinking My Economics by Angus Deaton (imf.org).
Ditto. Well said.
Really enjoyed this summary. Your observation regarding the Ardern administration's lack of progress on anything outside of Covid is very telling. Labour will NEVER be reelected whilst Hipkins is leader. The boy from the Hutt made good is a cheap veneer for the reality of an appalling legacy as education minister, and a minister for Covid tarred with the Ardern brush. Willie Jackson or Keiran McAnulty are obvious replacements, but neither hold constituency seats and that's a real stumbling block for me. If I had my way MMP would be booted into touch for the representation dog it's proved to be. The replacement with STV would see the back of populist like Peters which would be a huge improvement in a move to real representation.
Anything but a return to FPP, which belongs in the rubbish bin of history. US, UK & Canada need to follow suit, if their business elites will allow it.
I would vote for that if it meant the end of tails wagging the dog. Peters and Seymour need to be consigned to a blip in history. People always bag the Green Party as extremists, when they are possibly the most rational of all third parties
Do we really want a return to the spoilerific NZ FPP elections of 1978, 1981 & 1993? Or the US elections of 2000 & 2016?
I'll go further & say FPP doesn't just belong in the rubbish bin of history, it belongs in a toxic waste dump. If we actually have to change electoral systems, STV or IRV should be it.
Thanks for comments, Mike. There's a lot to be said for STV, and yet it wasn't picked as favourite back in 1992. If Willie Jackson can dial down the invective, he could become a credible leader.
People didn’t understand STV in 1992. It should be revisited. Many local councils now have this system and it’s time for central to follow.
Good point, Alexa. It would need a referendum, however... Are we up for that?
Maybe not yet. More councils, including our very conservative Otago Regional, are making the change. Some reflection on how it works at a local level might help. Another government like the one we have now might tip us over that edge.
Fair point. But, without dismissing STV, it seems to me that a number of comments (not just yours) are unhappy with MMP. There's still a case to be made for MMP, however.
Myself and around 20% (from memory) voted for STV and would’ve been a lot higher if the media hadn’t effectively decided to promote MMP as the only “realistic” alternative to FPP, the experts in the royal commission having protested that one. It’s a shame the media doesn’t seem to have enlightening the public to make an informed choice on their agenda...
I’d also go so far as to say I think having party lists under MMP is a real problem that has contributed to an “internal elite” focus and loss of direct accountability. STV ensures all MPs represent an electorate which I believe leads to more representative democracy. Finally Winston did well on the back of parliament’s complete failure of leadership over the parliament protest. He got my vote almost on this alone. Yes it was f... the elites and I know he’s a populist but it was a case of “damn”.
Hi Malcolm. Thanks for the comments. The referendum results are here, just for reference: https://teara.govt.nz/en/graph/36957/results-of-the-1992-and-2011-indicative-referendums
Point taken about local representation and STV.
And I agree that Winston very cleverly picked his moment when he 'walked among the unvaccinated'. A delegation from the protest should have been invited in to a korero with MPs.
Winston Peters is a travesty in our electoral process. A narcissist who has held our country to ransom since MMP's introduction. His Deputy Shane Jones is the worst kind of puffery since the insufferable Peter Dunne. And for you information Winston First got just 6%, thats right S.I.X. P.E.R.C.E.N.T. of the party vote and now my daughter her partner and their young son are going to have to live with the consequences of thus undemocratic fast track legislation. I hope your satisfied with the outcome of your protest vote
HI Mike. It's ok that you don't like NZ First, but please don't turn on other readers of this newsletter. Dial it down. Thanks. Grant
Am I not allowed to comment then? What do you mean dial it down. I'm so tired of being told how I should react to the evils being visited upon me by unreprsentative minorities. It is high time everyone, not just me, who is against the undemocratic processes being entertained did get angry and challenge all those who believe that Mr Peters, Mr Seymour et al have been given a mandate to behave like sociopaths. Do you not agree?
Mike, I know the media, many interest groups and individuals these days have adopted a post-modernist, self-righteous and us/them point of view that leads them to making extreme statements that bear little resemblance to reality. Your statement above follows this pattern so I just say "get real". Do you really think Peters is the worst thing since sliced bread? Is he going to absolutely wreck the NZ economy, destroy social cohesion (any worse than the last govt), destroy NZ foreign policy, start WWIII? Good grief man. Yes I am happy to be rid of the last Labour govt but I couldn't vote National or Act and I wanted my vote to count. Now I am pretty pissed off about sidling up to the US with AUKUS etc but as I recall the bloody Labour govt were doing that too. Grant that's another point that needs to be made about the last govt. I was among a lot of peace-nics that supported Labour stand over nuclear issue but that has completely fallen by the wayside in all but name. You can't be part of AUKUS and "space wars" as we are heading towards and pretend we uphold a non-nuclear stance. Pure fantasy.
Fair point about AUKUS, Malcolm. I didn't have that in mind as a I wrote the post. Your other comments make me think I could write about the role that Peters plays in NZ politics.
STV seeems to have its believers who think it is the solution to any electoral problem. To others it is mathematically unsound, and hugely complex to understand, vote under and count.
So many comments advocating STV are like this, in effect "it is bad so STV would be better". No evidence.
Good reply Edward! Thanks for that
Beyond Ardern’s control? Piffle. She revealed that she couldn’t organise a party in a brewery, along with her colleagues, none of whom had ever had a real job. Bringing back the children will not work. And as for National recycling Collins, forget about it. You only get one turn. Luxon will harden up - early days yet.
I guess the Kiwibuild fiasco will always be remembered as the example! And I agree, Max, that it would be unwise of National to trot out Collins again. Her 2020 campaign was a disaster of mixed messaging.
Helen Clark: Under promise and over deliver. But to do that you actually need to know how to deliver and the current Labour Party does not. But watch this space - change is coming. Wealth tax and/or capital gains on their way.
Yes, I think the backflip on tax is coming. The trouble for Labour then is that they're seen as the party of tax, rather than the party of prosperity.
According to Nostradamus the wealth tax will be accompanied by a middle-class tax break, to ameliorate your criticism. Makes sense. Question will be will it work? Middle class a bit bigger than the wealthy, so they’ll need a lot of tax from the rich to pay anything meaningful. I’d prefer they grew the cake myself, rather than ever smaller slices.
Good post but I think you missed a couple of important points and certainly ones that played into my thinking: first was Arden’s handling of cannabis referendum. After CGT a second sign of lack of leadership. The second thing, you downplayed, was the parliament protest. Cancel culture/ complete lack of leadership in my opinion. Bolger had it right; admit u stuffed up and go and talk to them... Labour lost me big time on that one (and I took the vax and booster but thought the marginalisation was appalling- admittedly media and Wgtn elites jumped onto the bandwagon but that’s not the enlightened way forward) - immoral in fact (if u pay even slight attention to the teachings of Jesus)
I'd quite forgotten about the cannabis referendum!
Similarly, although I got all the vax shots, I do think the mandates went too far. A couple of academic colleagues refused it, and I had to respect their decisions. They kept their jobs, but no one ever checked our vax passes on campus anyway, even in buildings. It was a complete farce. Some of those mandates were overturned on judicial review.
I guess cannabis doesn't play a big part in most people's voting decision BUT for the more progressive "freedom of choice" amongst the population (including me) it was a definite fail, "noted for future reference". I saw plenty of "hippies" (and Maori) down at the protest by the way when I wandered around to pick up the vibe on no less that 4 occasions and very few "far right nazis" (as in < 2) - VERY different from the MSM narrative. No doubt there were lots of paranoid people, feeling victimised though (isn't that what leads people into conspiracy theories)... It's going to take quite some time for Labour to overcome the suspicion of a not inconsiderable minority. The only upside for Labour is that National or ACT didn't do much/any better on this front.
Arderns resignation was self serving and delivered a hospital pass to the hapless Hipkins. In addition her absurd zero carbon policy sealed her fate.
Thanks, Mike. But would you then say the same about Key delivering a hospital pass to English, as he'd seen his popularity was waning and he couldn't contemplate a future coalition with Peters?
From its critics a definition of neoliberalism and your alternative would be useful.
I shall certainly give that some thought!
Really strong column. Thanks Grant. And along with the comments above covers much of reasons for Labour's spectacular fall. Worth adding that while Labour talked the language of transformation, in reality they followed a conservative economic model that rewarded the wealthy (eg 2019-21 the largest increase in house prices for those fortunate enough to be on the property ladder) and refused any initatives that might redistribute wealth to those in need (eg CGT). They wanted Scandanavian social/education/health policies with a tax policy that would not be out of place in USA. Something that are still struggling to understand and even if they finally get there, Hipkins and co have little credibility to make this happen in the eyes of many voters. They couldn't 'read the room' in the last 3 years of government and there is little to indicate that they have progressed far here (exhibit A - Willie Jackson on Jack Tame week before last -Jack "You lost 6 of the 7 Maori seats in last years election and you say you did nothing wrong?" Willie - "that's right - we won the party vote - you are a bit sarcastic Jack". Great stand up comedy - Monty Python where are you when we need you?
Yep. This massive funnelling upwards of wealth was what really lost me. I really couldn’t believe it at the time, watching companies pocket their gains (Covid gains) while their workers and communities got poorer. Was utterly gobsmacked by the failure to even attempt a rebalance. I cannot imagine what would win me back to that party. The options for any expression of the progressive left is woeful. We have the Greens. And that container doesn’t fit us all at this point.
Yes Alexa - agreed. I initially thought (naively) that Jacinda/Hipkins/Robertson were simply unaware of the extent of this imbalance - with COVID we were all running pretty fast to try and make sense of it - but as time went on it became clear that it wasn't they were unaware - it was that they simply didn't care enough to go beyond the words.
Thanks for your comments, Mark. Appreciated as always. Your point about social policy not matching tax policy is very good. And were you thinking of the one about the dead parrot?
yip - that nails it
Yes - that pretty much nails it.
Joint leadership ticket of Sepuloni +Hipkins would be better
Great suggestion, Kiri. Thanks!
Great column - enthralling. Two more comparators: on not messing around with kindness, Dan Andrews’s leadership of Victoria through the pandemic - tough rather than kind, and Labor are still in power there. (But let’s not forget gender here: Andrews is a bloke and the electorate is MERCILESS to women leaders - so unfair!) Second comparator, on emergency leadership soon being forgotten: UK Labour’s victory in the first general election after WWII: “we love ‘ee, Winnie, but we’ll none vote for ‘ee.”
Nice comparisons, thanks Kai! I should learn more about Angela Merkel, as she stands out as the most successful woman leader of our times, including some time in the Covid era.
And like Ardern she showed great compassion when she opened the borders to Syrian refugees - true leadership - so rare!
Marred though, by her abandonment of nuclear energy.
To offset Hipkins, National must roll Luxon. Collins is the logical choice. She knows her stuff and is not afraid to tell it as is is. Luxon tries too hard to please everyone.
But wait... Didn't Collins run a poor campaign in 2020 and then get replaced by Luxon – who soon boosted National's polling?